Sentences with phrase «in gistemp»

As is widely known, the change in the GISTEMP LOTI Arctic data is much higher than the UAH TLT anomaly data for the Arctic:

GISTEMP has posted for March with a TLT global anomaly of +0.89 ºC, showing the same tiddly bounce back up seen in the March TLT anomalies, in GISTEMP up from +0.79 ºC in February while January sat at +0.77 ºC.

It is 5th warmest March on record (6th in GISTEMP, = 6th in UAH, RSS 5th), in NOAA behind March 2016 (+1.23 ºC), 2017 (+1.02 ºC), 2015 (+0.90 ºC), 2010 (+0.85 ºC).

[Response: This is explained in the GISTEMP documentation, but in areas with no SST information (like most of the Arctic), the information from met stations is extrapolated over a radius of 1200 km.

Because weather station locations and measurements change over time, there is some uncertainty in the individual values in the GISTEMP index.

A. UK media reports in January 2015 erroneously claimed that differences between the raw GHCN v2 station data (archived here) and the current final GISTEMP adjusted data were due to unjustified positive adjustments made in the GISTEMP analysis.

If you think the problem is in the GISTEMP analysis, please let us know by email.

Other researchers participating in the GISTEMP analysis are Avi Persin, Dr. Makiko Sato, and Dr. Ken Lo.

In the GISTEMP index, the tables of zonal, global, hemispheric means are computed by combining the 100 subbox series for each box of the equal area grid, then combining those to get 8 zonal mean series, finally from those we get the Northern (23.6 - 90ºN), Southern and tropical means, always using the same method.

In GIStemp Station data is carried AS station data through STEP2 (they do produce a couple of «zonal averages» along the way, but the temp data are carried forward) THEN that process noted above is applied.

The smoothing effect of the 1200 km radius in the GISTEMP data is also apparent.

Essentially, each grid point observation in the GISTEMP analysis is a distance - weighted average of the station data within 1200 km.

The use of READER data in the GISTEMP analysis makes it much more useful for our study than the NOAA and HadCRUT3v datasets.

Similar to the Hurrell et al. (2008) analysis, SSTs in the GISTEMP analysis are a concatenation of the Hadley Centre analysis thru 1981 (Rayner et al. 2003) and of the satellite - based optimally interpolated SSTs (Reynolds et al. 2002) for 1982 to present.

From my perspective, seeing the issue with weather stations worldwide and the data they produce, and the high number of airports in GISTEMP, I think UAH is free of those biases.

The basic unit in the GISTEMP analysis is a grid of 8000 sub-boxes designed to contain equal area across the globe (although they appear uneven on a map).

1998 in GISTemp shows what is supposed to be seen in the difference between surface temperature and the altitude that satellites measure temperature at during El Nino.

(Actually, that's conservative; both 1999 and 2000 tied for fifth - warmest year following the big El Nino of» 97 -»98 in the GISTEMP data.

By the way, I am talking of actual temperature measurements here and am excluding the sharp peak in GISTEMP at the beginning of 1998 which gives it a boost of 0.07 degrees.

You find them at exactly the same locations in GISTEMP, HadCRUT3, and NCDC temperature curves.

«2014 * is * the warmest year in the GISTEMP, NOAA and Berkeley Earth analyses,» he said, referring to different data sets kept by different groups of scientists, including the one kept by his center and known as «GISTEMP.»

@Mike Edwards: Do you understand how the UHI adjustment works in GISTEMP?

Surely beats the interpolation in gistemp.»

The orange curve shows the temperature change in the GISTEMP data with all effects included.

The red squares show the portion of the remaining variation that is associated with the long - term global warming trend in the GISTEMP data, and the green circles show the corresponding long - term global warming trend in the ERSST data.

Upper panel: Changes in global surface temperature over the period 1900 - 2003 associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in the GISTEMP and ERSST datasets.

February 14, 2015: UK Press reports in January 2015 erroneously claimed that differences between the raw GHCNv2 station data (archived here) and the current final GISTEMP adjusted data were due to unjustified positive adjustments made in the GISTEMP analysis.

BillC — The longer - term (1979 - 2011) trends for the positive, neutral, and negative ENSO terciles respectively in GISTemp are 0.016, 0.016, and 0.014 C / yr.

(We've got one more probable bias in GISTEMP to double - check and write up - it's not very interesting but along with the SSTs it closes the remaining gap.

These are not unique to HadCRUT but are also found in GISTEMP and NCDC temperature curves.

The linear trend in HadCRUT4 from August 1997 to August 2012 (181 months) is 0.03 ºC / decade (blue)(In GISTEMP it is 0.08 ºC / decade, not shown).

The correlation is centered on the rapid warming which occurred between 1980 — 1998 in gistemp and the rapid warming which (apparently) occurred between 1936 -1960 in Indo SST.

I know it's a bit sad but I thought I'd have a look but I can't find the Santa Barbara you refer to in GISTEMP.

Whether or not such a halt has really occurred is of course controversial (it appears quite marked in the HadCRUT3 data, less so in GISTEMP); only time will tell if it's real.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000.

In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04 ºC, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.02 ºC.

The latter (used in GISTEMP until 1982) interpolates missing regions while the former (used in HadCRUT) does not.

I was very interested to read that the annual mean UHI adjustment was applied for all months in the GISTEMP data.

CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth.

Feb 2018 sits as = 112nd highest NOAA anomaly (= 42nd highest in GISTEMP, the difference from NOAA mainly down to the full arctic coverage).

2018 is the 11th warmest February on record (= 6th in GISTEMP), the top eleven being 2016, 2017, 2015, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2010, 1995, 1999, 2007, 2018.

In GISTEMP and HADCRUT, there are extremely few years that are not «statistically tied» (as in p > 0.05) with a prior year.

As is well known, the 10 - year trend since the large El Nino is flat in HadCRUT and only 0.1 deg C / decade in GISTEMP.

The bottom line: In the GISTEMP, HadCRU and NCDC analyses D - N 2008 were at 0.43, 0.42 and 0.47 ºC above the 1951 - 1980 baseline (respectively).

The high anomalies up in the Arctic continue for a third month in GISTEMP and the question of the maximum Arctic Sea Ice Extent is surely now only by how much this freeze season will be below the record low set in 2017.

Fig. 1 Revision history of two individual monthly values for January 1910 and January 2000 in the GISTEMP global temperature data from NASA (Source: WUWT)

In GISTEMP both October and November came in quite warm (0.58 ºC), the former edging up slightly on last month's estimate as more data came in.

2011 was the 9th warmest year in the GISTEMP global temperature series.

Because weather station locations and measurements change over time, there is some uncertainty in the individual values in the GISTEMP index.

Not exact matches

The 2015 temperatures continue a long - term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York (GISTEMP).